Livestock watered from polluted aquifer

Sean Nicholls, Nicole Hasham

The NSW environment regulator has revealed water for livestock is being extracted from an aquifer at a point less than five kilometres from where it was contaminated by a controversial coal seam gas project in the Pilliga Forest.

The Environment Protection Authority has not told the user, as it says taking water from the aquifer so far from the point of contamination poses "almost no risk".

Setback for industry: The coal seam gas project in the Pilliga Forest has contaminated water for nearby livestock. Photo: Dean Sewell

But the disclosure undermines claims by the company operating the gas field, Santos, that the affected ground water is not an aquifer but a "shallow perch layer" beneath the pond.

Santos was fined $1500 by the EPA on February 11 after an investigation revealed the holding pond for waste water from coal seam gas wells had leaked, affecting an aquifer with elevated levels of uranium, arsenic and other metals.

Coal seam gas: One of several operation sites in the Pilliga Forest. Photo: Jacky Ghossein

The EPA says the leak does not pose a health or environmental risk, but it is the first aquifer contamination incident associated with a coal seam gas project in Australia – a significant blow for the industry, which is seeking to expand.

On ABC radio on Monday Santos hydrogeologist Glenn Toogood claimed the area affected by the pond water is not an aquifer but a "shallow perch layer".

Advertisement

Mr Toogood likened the situation to a leaking swimming pool. "If a swimming pool had a minor leak below it you'd imagine around a corner where that leak was you'd have quite damp soil and quite moist soil," he said.

He said an aquifer was a body of water that "could sustain a domestic or an irrigation use. If you tried to take water out of this shallow perch layer it would dry up very quickly".

But in defending the EPA's use of the term aquifer, the authority's chief environmental regulator, Mark Gifford, revealed water from the aquifer is being used for "stock watering".

"Water is being extracted from that aquifer but at a distance of four to five kilometres," he said.

Mr Gifford said the EPA had concluded the chance of the farmer extracting contaminated water was "low risk" because of how slowly water moved in the aquifer.

"It's possible, but not probable," he said. "We are quite confident that it's not moving anywhere. It's contained there."

A Santos spokesman would not comment on the EPA's disclosure, but said the contaminated water was “very limited” in area and volume. “[It] is not used for agriculture, stock irrigation, human consumption or domestic purposes. The localised water sampled is not connected with regional aquifers,” he said, adding that the EPA “absolutely agrees with our assessment”.

He said about 10 litres of water a day was leaking from the pond, before being collected and returned .